Atom C3338 vs A9-9425

VS

Aggregate performance score

A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 15 Watt
1.73
+166%
Atom C3338
2017
2 cores / 2 threads, 8 Watt
0.65

A9-9425 outperforms Atom C3338 by a whopping 166% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A9-9425 and Atom C3338 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20432766
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.06
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesAMD Bristol RidgeIntel Atom
Power efficiency10.916.83
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Goldmont (2016−2017)
Release date31 May 2016 (8 years ago)22 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

A9-9425 and Atom C3338 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed3.1 GHz1.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz2.2 GHz
Multiplierno data15
L1 cache128K (per core)112 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)4 MB
L3 cache0 KB4 MB
Chip lithography28 nm14 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C89 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,200 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on A9-9425 and Atom C3338 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFT4FCBGA1310
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt8.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A9-9425 and Atom C3338. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRANDno data
AES-NI++
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
QuickAssistno data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-

Security technologies

A9-9425 and Atom C3338 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Keyno data+
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A9-9425 and Atom C3338 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A9-9425 and Atom C3338. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4: 1866
Maximum memory sizeno data128 GB
Max memory channelsno data1
Maximum memory bandwidthno data14.936 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) ( - 900 MHz)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A9-9425 and Atom C3338.

PCIe versionno data3
PCI Express lanesno data10
USB revisionno data3
Total number of SATA portsno data10
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data10
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data4x2.5/1 GBE

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A9-9425 1.73
+166%
Atom C3338 0.65

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

A9-9425 1513
+47.2%
Atom C3338 1028

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 0.65
Recency 31 May 2016 22 February 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 8 Watt

A9-9425 has a 166.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Atom C3338, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom C3338 in performance tests.

Be aware that A9-9425 is a notebook processor while Atom C3338 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A9-9425 and Atom C3338, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A9-9425
A9-9425
Intel Atom C3338
Atom C3338

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 1537 votes

Rate A9-9425 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Atom C3338 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A9-9425 or Atom C3338, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.